“The only ‘fair’ is laissez-faire, always and forever.” ― Dmitri Brooksfield
Do you believe no one can live outside the authority of the government?
Do you believe in theft and redistribution of wealth to fund their programs?
Do you believe a small oligarchy of politicians can best regulate the economy?
Do you believe a monopoly of fiat currency must be maintained?
Do you believe in using violence and force against those who disagree with you?
If yes, I think you should reconsider your position about who “deserve oxygen” and who does not.
If the person renting a home stops paying, the landlord will use force to evict the person.
In this case, the force applied by the landlord is legimitate because the tenant is not performing their contractual obligations over the property of the landlord.
You didn’t pay taxes? Here, lemme force you to stay in prison for a while, also here’s a fine on top of that.
There is no contract between the government and citizen that legitimize the violence of the state. Any theory of a “social contract” will be unilateral by nature. Actually, the state itself is a threat to the Non-Agression Principle.
Not all contracts are voluntary and, more importantly, the workers are almost always the weaker party when it comes to negotiation.
The asymmetries of power between both parties does not mean the contract is not voluntary. In fact, any government intervention in the labor market will make this situation worse, as these encourage poverty and harm those workers who are the less productive in the market.
If you leave it to the market to “self-regulate”, you’ll just get feudalism 2.0, where companies become the new noble houses
As long as private property is not violated by institutional coercion; as long as the system of prices is not manipulated by any government policy; as long as human action and his natural rights are respected: social cooperation through the division of labor will flourish, as voluntary exchange is the source of economic progress.
Indeed, civilization itself is inconceivable in the absence of private property. Any encroachment on property results in loss of freedom and prosperity, as property is the only way to resolve conflicts by the existence of scarce resources.
The market is a process, not an “equilibrium model”. It is not designed, but emerged from human action.
Really, any sufficiently big company will act just like a govt, full of unnecessary bureaucracy
The difference is that having market concentration does not mean being a monopoly. In fact, a monopoly is a government-grant privilege, for gaining legal rights to be a preferred producer is the only way to maintain a monopoly in a market setting.
The state can not have direct consumer feedback; it can not act economically. Instead, it collects taxes and spends them arbitrarily following interest groups.
“In a market economy, the range of quality, quantity, and type of goods and services correspond to social needs. These goods are services that are valued by consumers, and hence, they will be provided if it is economically feasible to do so relative to other social priorities.”
lunatics that cry at taxation but orgasm at rent and profiting off others’ work.
The former is only possible through institutional compulsion and coercion. The latter is through a voluntary contract that expresses the cooperation of both parties to work for each other, as they have a property interest in specific performance of the other.
Denying this process of voluntary exchange is, implicitly, denying the free will of the tenant and worker.
Mileiístas (in spanish).
Yes, I voted him, but to defend myself from the state. I don’t think that, in the long-term, he’s going to save our current crisis. In fact, I advocate for the complete abolishment of the state through agorism.
Taxation is robbery. I live in Argentina (+100% in taxes) and I have this problem too.
No amount of prolix explanation excuses even the act of stereotyping.
It depends on why and how you use stereotypes.
Prejudice only properly refers to judgments formed without consideration of the available information.
Prejudging is legitimate when we do not have all the relevant facts of an object or subject, having to resort to inductive reasoning in order to try to induce and predict its individual characteristics.
It’s all about trying to make new information about someone or something, so we can economize information.
The politically correct bien-pensants always fail to recognize that stereotyping is a form of inductive reasoning. If you see something repeatedly, but not necessarily without fail, you form an opinion, which is layered with a degree of truth. A subset of the human race, based on ethnicity, inclination, or geography, will spring to mind after reading each of the following words: financier, migrant worker, male flight attendant, NASCAR driver, sprinter.
I’m sure most of us immediately conjured similar images. Yes, it is unfair to impose a group characteristic onto an individual, but we did so nonetheless. To belabor the obvious, each of us is an individual, not a group. When the stereotype is proven fallacious for an individual, move on.
Some people care about the latest thing, regardless if it directly affects them or not.
Okay, so you admit you have no idea how economics work.
You’re not even trying to counter-argue my argument.
Conscription is slavery.
It doesn’t matter if everybody is drafted, it won’t change that fact. I think the problem is the existence of the so-called war, that is, mass murder. Who are the ones behind of all that coercion? The state.
Conscription should be abolished.
You dont understand economics at all if you dont understand how all free markets naturally devolve into monopolies.
I’m a “follower” of the Austrian School of Economics, although the idea that monopolies are government-grant privileges was first originated by the economists of the classical school (and they were right).
Predatory pricing cannot be sustained over the long haul, and not even this should be regretted since it benefits the consumers. Attempted cartel-type behavior typically collapses, and where it does not, it serves a market function.
The definition of a monopoly by the idea of “monopoly price” has no effective meaning in free-market setting, which are not snapshots in time but processes of change.
demand is manufactured by misleading and manipulative advertising and marketing.
It’s driven by planned obselesence.
Consumer products develop through experimentation. Consumer preferences also change and develop gradually through time. To meet them requires entrepreneurial judgment.
Nor is buying essential items like food and utilities voluntary.
Aside from a few innate demands concerning hunger and temperature, consumer preferences emerge as a result of interaction between many individuals.
Each consumer regulates the consumer products he consumes by spending money. There is no good substitute for the market process concerning the development and dissemination of consumer goods.
You cant have a free market without a government enforcing anti monopoly laws.
A free market is not free at all if the government is stepping in any voluntary exchange.
The existence of “anti-monopoly” laws has caused more harm than good by protecting particular competitors, not competition. In fact, monopolies can only survive through government-grant privileges, for gaining legal rights to be a preferred producer is the only way to maintain a monopoly in a free-market setting.
“A market society needs no antitrust policy at all; indeed, the state is the very source of the remaining monopolies we see in education, law, courts, and other areas.”
I’m really meant it. Saying an argumentum ad hominem is pretty childish for my taste.
Touch some grass, please.
Better it goes into government so at least people can vote to change it.
We can’t change it. Politicians would still have their monopolical powers because they help each other. Don’t trust the government. Billionaires not only influence it, they also receive help from them.
I can vote the State, I can’t vote the CEO.
You vote for certain politicians, other people vote for other politicians, and whoever wins, the tyranny of majority will emerge. The success of the CEO is dependent of supply and demand, if there are no monopolical privileges. (I discussed this in another reply).
That’s the citizens job, not his.
Following your logic, the citizens voting him is a perfect clue of this, am I right? Otherwise, I agree with you about what Milei will do with his powers. I don’t trust 100% any politician, even him, but he’s the only one who explicitly showed that, like donating each month his salary (funded by taxes) and not funding certain political campaigns.
Again it’s the citizens that dictate that. I can vote for people wanting to build something in the State, not a CEO that wants to build a highway for the goodwill of mankind.
Citizens has no direct influence in the process of decision politicians make. The CEO (at exception of lobbyists) wanting to build a highway is: using his own factors of production achieved by social-cooperation (capital, land, technology and workers) and his desire of providing it emerges by supply and demand, by competence in a free-market setting and the economic calculation of consumers in a system of prices.
Nobody wants to be the “bad guy”
Sorry, but I don’t get what you’re trying to tell me here. Read about the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.
Every “work flexibility” I’ve ever seen pitched is just code for turning people into wage slaves.
Leaving aside the exact policies of Milei about this (as I’d prefer no policy at all), any governmental intervention in labor markets will cause unemployment among less productive workers. The term “slave” is not valid because those workers voluntary agreed, in a contract, the amount of money they’d get to do certain job.
“Wages represent the discounted productivity of labor in satisfying consumer demand. Demand for consumer goods translates into demand for workers.”
It’s just that every time I’ve seen someone purpose breaking the system to make it better, they just want to break the system so that they can profit.
Fair enough. Distrust in politicians is perfectly logic and ethical, but accusing him of fascist? It does not make any sense.
Because we voted for them.
The fraud of representative democracy. What about those who didn’t vote them (the tyranny of the majority)? We, the common citizens, have really any power if our vote is secret?
The rights and obligations of a contractual act are generated by explicit consent of both members. This does not happen when we our vote is completely secret, without our names and surnames. Politicians are free to impose their monopolical powers, even if we don’t choose them.
“Representative democracy is the illusion of universal participation in the use of institutional coercion."
We didn’t vote for the board of directors of private companies.
Because we shouldn’t. Except for the lobbyists, they are using their private property and their factors of production achieved by social-cooperation.
There’s plenty of waste and corruption in private enterprise. It’s not voluntary if they lie cheat and steal just like bad politicians.
The only difference is that, in a free-market setting, they wouldn’t have any monopolical privileges to mantain their economical power and reputation in the market, as their permanence is dependent of supply and demand.
The landlords are providing a service to those who can’t afford houses, and the tenants, through economic calculation, determine that it’s better to pay for a department rather that saving for a house.
In fact, deficit spending, printing fiat money and manipulating interest rates harm savings and relative prices.
“If there seems to be a shortage of supply to meet an evident demand, then look to government as the cause of the problem.”